• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Voters ban judges from using international law

DarkWizard12

Conservative Independent
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,117
Reaction score
2,257
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You really have to wonder why this even had to put to a vote.
because some idiot judge had to open his/her idiot mouth and say something about "international law", and people thought of the worst, put it to vote, and made sure the worst would never happen. :/
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Okay boy genius (not you Dark), what happens if there is an issue that has never been dealt with in the US but has effectively been dealt with in foreign courts? By your reasoning, we cannot even look at how they dealt with it.

The whole "not invented here" attitude is very much detrimental to America.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
because some idiot judge had to open his/her idiot mouth and say something about "international law", and people thought of the worst, put it to vote, and made sure the worst would never happen. :/
Which is ridiculous. If we went on what's the worse that could happen, we'd do nothing. If an international court did something that was reasonable, gels with the COTUS, was intelligent and resolved the issue well, I see no intelligent reason not to examine international law. If we adopted the asinine "not invented here" we'd have to forgo a large number of daily things.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Okay boy genius (not you Dark), what happens if there is an issue that has never been dealt with in the US but has effectively been dealt with in foreign courts?

Then that is too bad. The intent of the authors behind the law is what should be looked up, not how judges in another country rule on something.

By your reasoning, we cannot even look at how they dealt with it.
The whole "not invented here" attitude is very much detrimental to America.
Judges in the US should not even in the first place be looking how other countries handle their cases. We not Mexico, Canada, Britain or some other country. I know I do not want judges here looking at Eurotrash example of the right to bear to arms, free speech or any other thing.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Then that is too bad. The intent of the authors behind the law is what should be looked up, not how judges in another country rule on something.
So basically you're saying it doesn't matter if the outcome was good, the reasoning just, and the law fine, not invented here so screw it?

Wow. And you think you are a patriot? Really.

Judges in the US should not even in the first place be looking how other countries handle their cases. We not Mexico, Canada, Britain or some other country. I know I do not want judges here looking at Eurotrash example of the right to bear to arms, free speech or any other thing.
So basically you are saying that if a new issue comes up, we should bar judges from looking at how other countries either successfully or unsuccessfully handled it?

You do know a fool learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from others' mistakes no?

Like I said, the "not invented here" is detrimental to America. Tell me, do you use anything that was invented or improved overseas?
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So basically you're saying it doesn't matter if the outcome was good, the reasoning just, and the law fine, not invented here so screw it?
One man's garbage is another man's treasure. In other words its a matter of perspective of what a good outcome is. I do not want a judge citing euro-trash version of free speech, middle eastern punishment for theft, or how some other country punishes their offenders for various other offenses.

Wow. And you think you are a patriot? Really.
You do realize that you can not be a patriot and a globalist piece of **** at the same time. Letting judges cite foreign law is very unpatriotic.

So basically you are saying that if a new issue comes up, we should bar judges from looking at how other countries either successfully or unsuccessfully handled it?
Yes we should ban judges from citing ANOTHER COUNTRY'S LAWS. Its a matter of perspective of what was successfully handled or unsuccessfully handled.


You do know a fool learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from others' mistakes no?
This is why voters in Oklahoma enacted this law. Its because of the fact they learned from other states mistakes and a few rats in the supreme court who cited foreign law.

Like I said, the "not invented here" is detrimental to America. Tell me, do you use anything that was invented or improved overseas?

The laws on our books do not have squat to do with me using a piece of electronics or machinery. Even if our country for example copied a particular law word for word from another country judges still should not look how judges in other countries handled cases involving that law. What is good or a bad court ruling is subjective, so judges in this country should not in any shape or form cite laws in another country.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,810
Reaction score
8,100
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I do not want a judge citing euro-trash version of free speech, middle eastern punishment for theft, or how some other country punishes their offenders for various other offenses.
Has a US judge done any of these things?
This is why voters in Oklahoma enacted this law. Its because of the fact they learned from other states mistakes and a few rats in the supreme court who cited foreign law.
How did they cite it?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
One man's garbage is another man's treasure. In other words its a matter of perspective of what a good outcome is. I do not want a judge citing euro-trash version of free speech, middle eastern punishment for theft, or how some other country punishes their offenders for various other offenses.
Where did I say anything about citing it? You are clearly against them even looking at what happened overseas. Tell me, do you think that everything our court system will see it has already seen?

Your xenophobia is pretty ridiculous.

You do realize that you can not be a patriot and a globalist piece of **** at the same time.
Actually the opposite is true. You cannot be a patriot and be a xenophobe at the same time. The world is too interconnected to just give the finger to everyone else. To ignore what occurs elsewhere or to scorn it is to leave yourself and this country exceedingly blind. Tell me how that benefits America.

Letting judges cite foreign law is very unpatriotic.
Since when did cite = look? The law bans "considering" which includes looking at foreign instances in courts and incorporating them into thinking. Basically, you want us to ignore everything foreign courts did, even when the subject is new to the US and dealt with overseas. I'd rather our court looks at how overseas courts either handles it well or totally screwed it up so we don't make the same mistakes. It appears you'd rather have us learn from our mistakes rather then learn from others' mistakes.

Yes we should ban judges from citing ANOTHER COUNTRY'S LAWS. Its a matter of perspective of what was successfully handled or unsuccessfully handled.
Since when was citing = considering? And no, it's not always a manner of perspective. You have this notion that anything not America is automatically bad.

This is why voters in Oklahoma enacted this law. Its because of the fact they learned from other states mistakes and a few rats in the supreme court who cited foreign law.
Such as....

You do realize that this law was based on idiocy that some places in the US are enacting Shar'ia? Despite the fact that is occurring nowhere in the US.

The laws on our books do not have squat to do with me using a piece of electronics or machinery.
How about an idea?
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,107
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
:lol: This law is fairly useless, judges can still take inspiration from international law, they just can't tell anyone.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:

As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
Look! The system works! And that judge should probably be impeached or not renewed. Appeals courts reverse bad decisions. Like how it's suppose to be.

And Ginsburg makes a good point. "Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” The notion that COTUS will cover everything is pretty insane.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Where did I say anything about citing it? You are clearly against them even looking at what happened overseas. Tell me, do you think that everything our court system will see it has already seen?
I do not know nor do I care. Judges here have no business looking(pc speak for citing) at foreign law.

Your xenophobia is pretty ridiculous.
Your desperation in defending globalist judges is ridiculous.

Actually the opposite is true.
No its not.Patriotism is synonymous with nationalism.Globalism is the opposite of nationalism

Patriotism Synonyms, Patriotism Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
Main Entry: patriotism
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: love of one's country
Synonyms: allegiance, chauvinism, flag-waving, loyalty, nationalism, public spirit


Antonym of nationalism | Synonym.com
nationalism
Antonym of internationalism


You cannot be a patriot and be a xenophobe at the same time. The world is too interconnected to just give the finger to everyone else. To ignore what occurs elsewhere or to scorn it is to leave yourself and this country exceedingly blind. Tell me how that benefits America.

Xenophobia. SO you want to attach that word to not wanting judges to cite laws in other countries? You can not be a globalist/internationalist and a patriot at the same time. Its like being pro-life and running an abortion clinic, it can't happen because they are the opposite of each other.

Since when did cite = look? The law bans "considering" which includes looking at foreign instances in courts and incorporating them into thinking. Basically, you want us to ignore everything foreign courts did, even when the subject is new to the US and dealt with overseas. I'd rather our court looks at how overseas courts either handles it well or totally screwed it up so we don't make the same mistakes. It appears you'd rather have us learn from our mistakes rather then learn from others' mistakes.


Since when was citing = considering? And no, it's not always a manner of perspective. You have this notion that anything not America is automatically bad.
Whats the point in looking if they are not going to cite it or use that example? The only reason to be looking in the first place is to use them as an example. A judge here in the US has no business looking how Russia handles thieves or how Britain handles free speech cases.


Such as....

You do realize that this law was based on idiocy that some places in the US are enacting Shar'ia? Despite the fact that is occurring nowhere in the US.
You do realize some idiot judge in New Jersey cited SHaria law and even a supreme court judge cited foreign law? The decision did get reversed, but a judge citing foreign law should have never happened in the first place.That is why Oklahoma enacted its anti-globalist/internationalist law.

How about an idea?
I do not care if the US copies Mexico's laws in dealing with illegals. A judge should only look(pc speak for cite) at US copy of the law dealing with illegals, not court cases in Mexico. If we copy Mexico's laws in dealing with illegals we pretty much know the intent behind that law regardless of the fact if today was the first time someone was punished according to hose laws,judges do not need to look at Mexico's court room decisions involving the law.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Look! The system works! And that judge should probably be impeached or not renewed. Appeals courts reverse bad decisions. Like how it's suppose to be.
And if New Jersey had a law banning judges from citing forign laws then they would have never had to worry about repealing a bad judges ruling like that. How time passed between the woman getting the restraining order denied and that idiot judges ruling revered?

And Ginsburg makes a good point. "Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” The notion that COTUS will cover everything is pretty insane.
Ginsburg and any other judge who looks/cites foreign law is a piece of **** who should be removed.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The law is fairly useless on multiple levels. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that if the Federal gov honours an international law, that means every State has to. Oklahoma can go suck a lemon.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I do not know nor do I care. Judges here have no business looking(pc speak for citing) at foreign law.
Hence your view. You don't care to look forward to the future.

Our court system has not seen everything that it will see. And eventually there is going to be something new we haven't seen before that some other court dealt with. You would have us ignore how that went down and go in completely and utterly blind. And you call yourself a patriot. Really. More information often leads to better decisions. You seem to think that's not true.

Your desperation in defending globalist judges is ridiculous.
Actually, I can see more then a few feet in front of me.

No its not.Patriotism is synonymous with nationalism.Globalism is the opposite of nationalism
Globalist does not mean internationalism. Furthermore you have failed to address my point entirely. It's sad how you want to be the ostrich that sticks his head in the sand....and then gets eaten by the lions.

Xenophobia. SO you want to attach that word to not wanting judges to cite laws in other countries?
Nope. I'm attaching it to your "Not American = Bad" attitude.

You can not be a globalist/internationalist and a patriot at the same time. Its like being pro-life and running an abortion clinic, it can't happen because they are the opposite of each other.
Except that you have defined internationalist = globalist unilaterally. How's the sand in your hair?

Whats the point in looking if they are not going to cite it or use that example? The only reason to be looking in the first place is to use them as an example. A judge here in the US has no business looking how Russia handles thieves or how Britain handles free speech cases.
So you do think that everything that our courts will see it has already seen. Please show me how that is true and why you believe it. You seem to be under this asinine notion that courts won't follow clear US precedent. Courts look overseas when the issue is new and there isn't much or any US precedent to follow. What you propose is to prevent them from looking at how other courts dealt with issues American courts have not. It's like telling your kid they can't ask the neighbors for math help because you never came across this type of equation before. Crazy. No one is proposing that US courts ignore US precedent. The issue is new issues.

You do realize some idiot judge in New Jersey cited SHaria law and even a supreme court judge cited foreign law?
Read the posts before you. I already cited how they got overturned. Appeals courts work. Like they are suppose to.

The decision did get reversed, but a judge citing foreign law should have never happened in the first place.That is why Oklahoma enacted its anti-globalist/internationalist law.
So one judge makes a mistake and we do this. Is that rational? Especially when the appeals court works?

If we copy Mexico's laws in dealing with illegals we pretty much know the intent behind that law regardless of the fact if today was the first time someone was punished according to hose laws,judges do not need to look at Mexico's court room decisions involving the law.
Okay boy genius. What happens when a new issue comes up. One the US hasn't dealt with before. Why is it SO BAD to look at how other courts dealt with it.

Your crazy ass notion that everything the courts will see it has seen is just that. Crazy.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The law is fairly useless on multiple levels. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that if the Federal gov honours an international law, that means every State has to. Oklahoma can go suck a lemon.
Good point. Especially since the text of the law says that international law is defined also by treaties. As those are federal laws, they automatically supercede state law rendering this state law invalid.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,810
Reaction score
8,100
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The actual document is hard to find. the court that over turned the appeal said that:
"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA.
We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."​
From this it seems that, in this case the issue was a poor interpretation of the 1st amendment rather than use of Sharia law as precedent.
url=http://wellsy.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/ruth-bader-ginsburg-defends-citing-foreign-law-in-scotus-decisions/]Ruth Bader Ginsburg defends citing foreign law in SCOTUS decisions « Wellsy's World[/url]
Ginsburg said that a court is NOT bound by foreign law but can be influenced by good reasoning from foreign sources if it so chooses.

What if the citation were to one of King Solomon's rulings? Is it okay for a judge to look to King Solomon and see if there was any wisdom in something that he did? If there were any merit in one of Solomon's judgments, can that same wisdom be used in an American court even though the wisdom comes from a foreign source? Or would that make one an unpatriotic "globalist"?

What about British common law? If there is any wisdom in that, is it acceptable to use that wisdom?

I think that the idea that is being railed against here is abhorrent. However, I do not think that the idea that we oppose is the same thing as what is actual in existence.
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I agree with Obvious Child. It makes no sense to not learn from the experiences of other countries when dealing with an issue or problem. However I don't believe that Judges should use foreign law when addressing cases with already pre-established precedence or Constitutional issues.
 

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,526
Reaction score
30,449
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Okay boy genius (not you Dark), what happens if there is an issue that has never been dealt with in the US but has effectively been dealt with in foreign courts? By your reasoning, we cannot even look at how they dealt with it.

The whole "not invented here" attitude is very much detrimental to America.
Do you understand the difference between, "precedence", and, "law"? Foreign laws should never be used to decide cases in The United States. It takes a complete goofball to think that it would be ok to do so.

In China, drunk drivers get the death penalty. Would you be ok for an American judge to issue a sentence of death to a convicted drunk driver, just because it's the law in China?

The United States has a constitution and laws and those are the only barometers of justice that are to be used. Period!!
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Do you understand the difference between, "precedence", and, "law"?
Yes. I wonder if you do.

Foreign laws should never be used to decide cases in The United States.
Wrong as usual Adpst. Foreign laws include treaties signed with the United States. Treaties that range from weapons control to tax transfer pricing. To say that we should never use foreign laws is to explicitly argue that we should not abide to our own treaties ratified by our own Congress. Furthermore, merely looking at a foreign case, and not necessarily the actual law does not mean that we are basing the entire US court decision on international outcomes. You appear to be very unaware of the various aspects of law.

Uber fail there Adpst.


It takes a complete goofball to think that it would be ok to do so.
It takes a complete goofball to think that it's okay to explicitly mandate that US courts must ignore US treaties. Way to fail to read the actual bill there. Notice how it defines international law. It includes treatises the US has signed. That effectively makes it unconstitutional as it attempts to take away the Federal Government's sole ability to deal with foreign powers. States do not have the right to make international agreements. Nor do they have the right to ignore Federal law. By explicitly legislating that state courts must ignore federal law, they have enacted a highly unconstitutional law.

In China, drunk drivers get the death penalty. Would you be ok for an American judge to issue a sentence of death to a convicted drunk driver, just because it's the law in China?
Way to completely screw up what I was talking about. Go read what I wrote rather then just lying your ass off with exceptionally poor analogies. You do know people can actually read what I wrote and see you are being dishonest no?

The United States has a constitution and laws and those are the only barometers of justice that are to be used. Period!!
Except that the Oklahoma law explicitly forbids the application of US treaties. Which are US laws.

You really should research before posting.

It's rather pathetic how some people have to resort to outright lying about what I said to attempt to get back at me.
 
Top Bottom